Bombay High Court
GOPAL MANIKRAO BIRAJDARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The Court condoned the delay of 1,387 days and allowed the criminal application, permitting the appeal to be registered.
Summary
The appellant, Gopal Manikrao Biradar, was convicted under Sections 353, 332 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, and sentenced to a term not exceeding two years. He filed a criminal application seeking condonation of a 1,387‑day delay in preferring an appeal, citing extreme financial constraints that prevented timely filing. The respondent argued that the delay demonstrated a lack of respect for the court and that condonation should not be granted. The Court considered the length of the sentence, the appellant's financial hardship, and the principle of ensuring access to justice. It held that the delay could be condoned and ordered the appeal to be registered, thereby allowing the application.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 1,387 days in filing an appeal can be condoned on the ground of financial constraints
- Whether the appellant is entitled to relief despite the length of the delay
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 332, 353, 379
Subjects
- criminal appeal
- condonation of delay
- IPC sections 353, 332, 379
- financial constraints
- sentencing
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:10431
15-APPLN-643-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 643 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL (ST) NO. 1677 OF 2026
Gopal Manikrao Biradar ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT
....
Mr. M.G. Kedar, Advocate for applicant
Mr. V.K. Kotecha, A.P.P. for respondent - State
....
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 09th MARCH, 2026
PER COURT :
. Challenging the conviction punishable under Sections 353, 332
and 379 of the Indian Penal Code awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Udgir in Sessions Case No. 6 of 2020 vide judgment and order dated 25 th
February, 2025, the accused has triggered the appeal, in which delay of 1387
days is caused.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is due to the
extreme financial constraints, the applicant could not prefer appeal within
time and consequently delay is caused. He submits that since December 2025
the applicant is in jail.
1 / 2
15-APPLN-643-26.odt
3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the order was passed in February
2025, whereas the appeal is preferred in the year 2026, which clearly shows
the attitude on the part of the accused. He submitted that since the applicant
was sleeping over his right, he is not entitled for condonation of delay.
4. Since the maximum sentence awarded is for two years and
considering the reasons mentioned in the application, I am inclined to allow
the application. Hence, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
(I) Criminal application is allowed.
(II) Delay of 1387 days caused in preferring the appeal is
condoned.
(III) Appeal be registered accordingly.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SSD
2 / 2
Checking your session…